Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:109036
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.1.7-991-g5a577d3-fmstable-20200305v3
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <6f2e7718-5d78-4c57-8da9-f8dd44cc9e7b@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CADyq6sLkWoCBqY+75xBLEun8xiAFhrY9BHJ9YjhLCXuECqha=A@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAH5C8xVYFkgyW88332ei8coMOijuynHXg3A2dL50XU4HP5Vpyw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKuGYLTsK2h_Yeo1vMju867hhmzyHt+GwoGStcQtiYMi2VB1tg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAF+90c9RKf5PUQY0XHf=8QVVMw8jiJ=7eWfY5TTANEYt-a-ZAA@mail.gmail.com>
 <8545d15e-ddd5-42be-8405-09697a077234@www.fastmail.com>
 <CAH5C8xWgkUCAJguwnP69VqWXUaR+QtJRPMyBdv7B5vcnQjTD1g@mail.gmail.com>
 <4d9688fe-cc57-44af-903e-05f4cbb1bbcc@www.fastmail.com>
 <CALKiJKpt+xBwyEn-yVY6h_DT-c+T6nUGgye6Ocxjdcpc4fOobg@mail.gmail.com>
 <6bcbf0a5-92d8-4cfa-a00f-e0e967fc037e@www.fastmail.com>
 <CAOWwgpm6VJAphpdkqTo21=S6xXW=6q26v=C=H=KCF=SS0h7BoA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5C8xVpHYW7woD-Fw_o2HvbDpsjGN0fE6Z+S3n0UxcTRBhySQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5C8xVm5mX6tiLBnBcGTDR0XmumWxfc2q=p5a9qqtisDM-jiQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5C8xXZKvi20ST1JLPWxuo+7Hpp933_L0WnDNqX8Dum3ukRHA@mail.gmail.com>
 <700327df-45d5-47ca-8828-d7ad9c9bee2e@www.fastmail.com>
 <CAH5C8xWRevvdHyNx01Eg4b_qYAESniYZdkGWfdgiPO81cL4ziQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADyq6sKrwur9w+AvJ-hFx28=KZcDU7+2kwuGe+B_YVtKwzAo_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5C8xVQ-=qzLBCaq5NcU+dbzSpFEPF5Qv0n+W+uwyEdNjhzKg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADyq6sLkWoCBqY+75xBLEun8xiAFhrY9BHJ9YjhLCXuECqha=A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2020 13:43:29 -0500
To: "php internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [DISCUSSION] Immutable/final/readonly properties
From: larry@garfieldtech.com ("Larry Garfield")

On Sun, Mar 15, 2020, at 8:48 AM, Marco Pivetta wrote:
> Hey M=C3=A1t=C3=A9,
>=20
> On Sun, Mar 15, 2020, 14:04 M=C3=A1t=C3=A9 Kocsis <kocsismate90@gmail.=
com> wrote:
>=20
> > Hi Marco,
> >
> > Yes, it still allows default values.
> >
> > The reason why I'm reluctant to disallow them is that this restricti=
on
> > would feel a bit ad-hoc for me. I mean, I wouldn't like to add anoth=
er
> > special rule for "write-once" properties, unless there is a strong
> > argument for it. Besides, as far as I know there is no precedents of=

> > disallowing default values of similar properties in other languages,=

> > so I feel that the feature would stay the most intuitive as it is no=
w.
> >
>=20
> I think what will happen is that people will start requesting for read=
-only
> properties with default values to be over-writable-once (a mess): bett=
er to
> remove them from the equation completely, no?

My concern is that if a readonly property can have a default value which=
 is not overwriteable, then it's conceptually isomorphic to a class cons=
tant.  That will lead to ample questions and debates about whether you s=
hould use a class constant or a read-only property, or when you should u=
se one or the other.  I foresee numerous bikeshed debates about that, wh=
ich will only lead to thousands of hours of lost time debating something=
 that shouldn't exist.

Avoiding that confusion will save the industry millions of dollars.

--Larry Garfield